shown, that the foundation of religion, subsists in the Roman Catholic religion, so that a person may be orthodox in it, live well in it, die well in it, and obtain salvation in it, the discussion of the proposed question, is easy.  We are, therefore, of opinion, that the most Serene Princess of Wolfenbuttell, may, in favour of her marriage, embrace the catholic religion.”

This opinion is dated the 28th of April 1707, and was printed in the same year at Cologne.  The Journalists of Trevoux inserted both the original and a French translation of it in their journal of May, 1708.

Under these circumstances, the correspondence in question took place.  It began, in 1718, through Doctor Beauvoir, chaplain to Lord Stair, his Britannic majesty’s ambassador at Paris.  Some conversation, on the reunion of the two churches, having taken place, between Doctor Dupin, and him, he acquainted the archbishop of Canterbury, with the subject of them.  This communication, produced some compliments from the archbishop, to Dr. Dupin, and these, led the latter, to address, to his grace, a letter, in which he mentioned generally, that, on some points in dispute, the supposed difference between the two communions was reconcileable.  The correspondence getting wind, Doctor Piers, pronounced a discourse in the Sorbonne, in which he earnestly exhorted his colleagues, to promote the reunion, by revising those articles, of doctrine, and discipline, which protestants branded with the name of papal tyranny; and contended, that, by proscribing the ultramontane doctrines, the first step to the reunion would be made.  The discourse, was communicated to Dr. Wake:  in his answer, he pressed Dr. Dupin, for a more explicit declaration, on the leading points, in controversy.

In compliance with this requisition, Doctor Dupin drew up his Commonitorium, and communicated it, to several persons of distinction, both in the state, and church of France.  He discussed in it, the Thirty-nine Articles, as they regarded doctrine, morality, and discipline.  He insisted on the necessity of tradition, to interpret the scriptures, and to establish the canonicity of the books, of the Old and New Testament.  He insisted on the infallibility, of the church, in faith, and morals; he contended, that the sacrifice of the mass, was not a simple sacrament, but a continuation of the sacrifice of the cross.

The word Transubstantiation, he seemed willing to give up, if the Roman Catholic doctrine, intended to be expressed by it, were retained.  He proposed, that communion under both kinds, or under bread alone, should be left, to the discretion of the different churches, and consented, that persons in holy orders should retain their state, with such provisions, as would place the validity of their ordination, beyond exception.  The marriage of priests, in the countries, in which such marriages were allowed, and the recitation of the divine service in the vulgar tongue, he allowed;